Odd but I did not make my comments to force a change to the game. Only to point out if you sit down to play this game as a modern war simulator. What you know about modern warfare such as Tanks cannot take cities on their own. And Cavalry cannot melee modern infantry as they have for hundreds of years. Are not applicable in this game. I have learned these details from playing the game and have factored these into my game play. Oh and by the way if I comment on a topic if it is contrary to your viewpoint I would be grateful if you would not categorize my comments as complaining. They are simply known Military facts.

I don't agree the discussion leads nowhere. Vic keeps notes about what ATG gamers are discussing. Also, this discussion has evolved into this: should or should not the core ATG experience be tweaked regarding guerrillas and cavalry. Vic listens, evaluates and makes a decision to either make changes or not. He if makes changes, he'll listen for feedback about the changes just as he now is listening for feedback about officers.

Hopefully the discussion doesn't sink into back and forth arguments that turn negative or get too repetitive. If that happens, then the discussion begins to lose value.

Update: Good article on use of Horses in WW2 Perhaps the issue is not so much that there is lots of cavalry in ATG but that it has so much offensive combat power vs infantry that is entrenched and/or in rough type terrain (and can move through that rough terrain so well).

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

I guess this discussion leads nowhere - it's a matter of taste. In the end those who want something to be different can always use the editor. It's really not hard.

In regards to the tendency of players to form long lines and fight a kind of World War 1 type war. Cavalry should not have been the force to break that log jam. They could not have done it in the First World War. There is a method for breaking such Impasses its called Blitzgreig. The Combination of armor artillery and air power to blow a whole in the enemy line. The main drawback to this happening in this game is scouting not only can you see the units opposite you you can see the units behind them and this takes away the element of surprise a major element in a war of maneuver. It should be a lot harder to gain intel about what you are facing especially in a fluid situation. The vast majority of attacks launched on the Russian Front had guesses at best about what they were facing. The Allies with vast air superiority had a easier time of it but air superiority alone are not guarantee's of knowing what you are facing ie: Battle Of The Bulge being a excellent example.

This post is a good example of how a good discussion leads to other ideas. Is ATG intel too good? Yes/No? If some think it too good, how might it be addressed? Intel points that you spend on certain critical areas? No "deep" intel except via air recon? Another area ripe for a general discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ironduke1955

In regards to the tendency of players to form long lines and fight a kind of World War 1 type war. Cavalry should not have been the force to break that log jam. They could not have done it in the First World War. There is a method for breaking such Impasses its called Blitzgreig. The Combination of armor artillery and air power to blow a whole in the enemy line. The main drawback to this happening in this game is scouting not only can you see the units opposite you you can see the units behind them and this takes away the element of surprise a major element in a war of maneuver. It should be a lot harder to gain intel about what you are facing especially in a fluid situation. The vast majority of attacks launched on the Russian Front had guesses at best about what they were facing. The Allies with vast air superiority had a easier time of it but air superiority alone are not guarantee's of knowing what you are facing ie: Battle Of The Bulge being a excellent example.

One person's "facts" are not universal truths. Thinking of cavalry it shouldn't be faster stronger infantry. The usefulness of cavalry in the modern environment is generally limited to a road poor environment. In modern times cavalry had no "shock" value but were quite mobile in forested, swampy and rough terrain. Where the terrain and roads are good there is not much cavalry can do that an armoured car cannot do better. But on unsuitable ground mechanised units, especially early ones are not very effective. Cavalry is also extremely vulnerable to modern weapons since horses cannot be protected by infantry tactics like "going to ground" ie rapidly digging in. A man can scrape a slit trench but horses aren't very good at that. Also usually modern cavalry has to devote on man in four or five to hold the horses during combat and horses eat a lot. Did I mention that they eat a lot?

_____________________________

"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw

I agree with ironduke that the tactical intel is slightly too powerful. This can be indeed considered a important factor which hinders blitzkrieg. The other factor, I think, is "flying production" - even if you manage secretly to create strong attack force which manages to achieve success at the beginning, then your opponent simply will "fly" a large part of his production against your attack force and creates strong enough force which hinders the blitzkrieg down. In reality: if operational surprise and breakthrough is achieved and the opponent does not have strong reserves present, then the opponent must collect (transport) forces to the threatened sector. This takes time in reality (but not in ATG).

Also, currently in ATG it takes large amount of resources (in trains) to strategically transfer significant units and their readiness is reduced. I myself hardly use strategic transfer because it is much easier to use the "flying production" in the role of strategic transfer. Even the readiness is not reduced so much. The same applies in creating reserves - in ATG you don't really need reserves because you know that the "flying production" is always there where you need it in the next turn - it's your reserve.

The solution? The "flying production" should have readiness of 10-20 when it arrives to the destination HQ. Or one can of course play with hardcore production turned on.

" should have readiness of 10-20 when it arrives to the destination HQ. Or one can of course play with hardcore production turned on."

Certainly slower rates of readiness recovery are a excellent way of helping with effective Blitzgreig. And certainly the period from when a unit is created untill it reaches optimum Readiness could be collated to training. Units thrown together would be like the Soviet units thrown in front of the German Blitzgreig. This would be different from a strategic reserve units units kept back who are at maximum readiness. These units if transported to threatened area's would not suffer such a massive reduction to their readiness and form a effective counter to Blitzgreig. And would encourage the building of a Strategic reserve.

Intelligence gathering would it not be possible to make intel gathering a function of the HQ/General after all that is where intel is deceminated. A good commander by the use of cards could gain a better idea about the enemy units infront of him.

The range of tactical intelligence should be redced in my opinion. For most units the range of one hex would be enough. Armored cars, jeeps, halftracks and cavalry should have max range 2. Plus the latter units should have stronger intel in their range (more precise information about the enemy). In reality the combination of air, agent and radio intelligence was used to try to determine enemy concetration in more deeper rear areas.

Maybe the supply consumption rate for cavalry units should be increased ? As a means of transport, horses are consumers of foodstuffs and not petroleum distillates but the rates of consumption should have some equivalency per hex moved.

The range of tactical intelligence should be redced in my opinion. For most units the range of one hex would be enough. Armored cars, jeeps, halftracks and cavalry should have max range 2. Plus the latter units should have stronger intel in their range (more precise information about the enemy). In reality the combination of air, agent and radio intelligence was used to try to determine enemy concetration in more deeper rear areas.

Very interesting. It would tend to aid the offensive, and I think would make many players more defensive. This however is a big, game changing thought, and should be considered very carefully. It would probably tend to slow the game down. I think everyone would tend to be more careful if they didn't recieve long range intel. Most guys would likely wish to thinken up the defesive grid to be ready in case of attack. I think it is fine the way it is, but then again, everyone is welcome to have their own opinion.

I agree with ironduke that the tactical intel is slightly too powerful. This can be indeed considered a important factor which hinders blitzkrieg. The other factor, I think, is "flying production" - even if you manage secretly to create strong attack force which manages to achieve success at the beginning, then your opponent simply will "fly" a large part of his production against your attack force and creates strong enough force which hinders the blitzkrieg down. In reality: if operational surprise and breakthrough is achieved and the opponent does not have strong reserves present, then the opponent must collect (transport) forces to the threatened sector. This takes time in reality (but not in ATG).

Also, currently in ATG it takes large amount of resources (in trains) to strategically transfer significant units and their readiness is reduced. I myself hardly use strategic transfer because it is much easier to use the "flying production" in the role of strategic transfer. Even the readiness is not reduced so much. The same applies in creating reserves - in ATG you don't really need reserves because you know that the "flying production" is always there where you need it in the next turn - it's your reserve.

The solution? The "flying production" should have readiness of 10-20 when it arrives to the destination HQ. Or one can of course play with hardcore production turned on.

But don't get me wrong - ATG is still my favourite game.

My team mates and I usually refer to this as "direct distribution", and I like it. Again we are force to sacrifice some realism for enjoyment. It is still quite possible to acheive massive breakthroughs, they just need bigger committment and better Maskirovka. You are one of the best I have seen at both of these, all of your attacks are works of art. I cant imagine why you have trouble sneaking up on most of these guys.

I totally disagree with mean on this regards reduced or no intel. Apart from being historically accurate. It would favour the bold and intuitive player it would make attacks massively more effective and produce more fluid games. Only the players that require absolute confirmation of what they are facing before they will do anything will have a problem with this. If you find yourself paralysed with fear and unable to attack because you need to know the result of a attack before it happens. Then a lack of intel will not be for you. If you like launching crushing surprise attack or setting deadly traps then restricting intel is for you. And of course it is also historically accurate. Plus as have previously said a high level commander would have cards to play that would gain intel of what he was facing. This would reflect the efficiency of his staff and his ability to diseminate inteligence and make the correct assessment about what he was facing. As great commanders of this period would have been able to do.

My team mates and I usually refer to this as "direct distribution", and I like it. Again we are force to sacrifice some realism for enjoyment.

Well - it's a matter of taste. I myself enjoy more games with enviroment which is more similar to reality and forces the commanders to face challenges which actually were facing commanders in WW II. The problems of logistics and reserves. The current "flying production" is far away from simulating it and is even not logical when compared to the other ATG feature - the strategic transfer.

Certainly slower rates of readiness recovery are a excellent way of helping with effective Blitzgreig. And certainly the period from when a unit is created untill it reaches optimum Readiness could be collated to training.

Yep. If the production arrives with very low readiness, this actually would simulate the forming/training of units. Because unless the situation is extremely critical, nobody will throw just-produced low-readiness units to the battlefield.

Currently the units are formed instantly and are ready to go into the combat. In reality the forming of units is a bit longer process.

Lower readiness maybe, but that would also soak up a lot of supply and in some games I have a desperate need for every drop of supply I can produce. Also new units have a Exp of 10! Cannonfodder so to speak, it takes a few turns at least before they are in their 30's-40's, then I train them by letting them have a go at soft targets so they are in their 50's-60's, after that I consider them "front ready".

Just a quick thought about the cavalry. If any of you have read Clausewitz, he points out that in rough terrain the (mountains) the defender is at a disadvantage for anything but guerrilla warfare. So for all of you guys who are complaining about how unrealistic it is to have cavalry fighting well in the mountains, having large armies dug in on mountains and/or in swamps and/or in jungle is rather unrealistic as well, if for no other reasons than logistics. That all being said, try not to think of them as lancers and mounted swordsmen, rather, the were mounted rifle infantry, riding horses into a combat area and dispersing and dismounting and leaving some men to watch the horses while most of the men went ahead to fight. On D-Day +2 and D-Day +3 , thousands of Canadian and British troops brought collapsible bicycles ashore to help with thier mobility. Also, according to Col. Glantz, cavalry/mechanized Corps were formed specifically to fight in rough terrain areas where regular tank fomations could not operate effectively.

Just a quick thought about the cavalry. If any of you have read Clausewitz, he points out that in rough terrain the (mountains) the defender is at a disadvantage for anything but guerrilla warfare. So for all of you guys who are complaining about how unrealistic it is to have cavalry fighting well in the mountains, having large armies dug in on mountains and/or in swamps and/or in jungle is rather unrealistic as well, if for no other reasons than logistics. That all being said, try not to think of them as lancers and mounted swordsmen, rather, the were mounted rifle infantry, riding horses into a combat area and dispersing and dismounting and leaving some men to watch the horses while most of the men went ahead to fight. On D-Day +2 and D-Day +3 , thousands of Canadian and British troops brought collapsible bicycles ashore to help with thier mobility.

I think those who complain about cavalry, actually indeed see it as mounted rifle infantry and not lancers and swordsman. And therefore the cavalry super attack value is unrealistic. Yes, cavalry should have better mobility - who has argued against it?

Current ATG cavalry is simply a unrealistic and gamey unit in WW II context. I wonder what Glantz would really say if somebody would introduce him the role of cavalry in ATG.

And yes, I think that the stack limit in heavy terrain should be reduced.

However the claim that the defender is at disadvantage in rough terrain (mountains) may have been true when Clausewitz lived (I don't know really), but not on 20th Century. In mountains it is much harder to concentrate heavy weapons to suppress the defenders. Also it is hard to maneuver for the attacker. Defender can use elevation as a advantage.

All of the advantages of defending mountains dissappear as the size of the units in the mountains is increased. The attacker may concentrate all of his strength at one place and the defender will find it difficult to reinforce trhough mountain passes. Mountains simply cannot support large fomations, in 1944, when Konev pinned the 1st SS panzer up against the Carpatian mountains, the 1st SS Panzer did not just climb up and dig in. They were effectively cut off, not given a great defensive position. There are lots of things that one might find to complain about in this game. If we tried to change everyting to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game. I still think that the only real change that needs to be made, is to make guerrillas available to all factions. Meanie.

All of the advantages of defending mountains dissappear as the size of the units in the mountains is increased. The attacker may concentrate all of his strength at one place and the defender will find it difficult to reinforce trhough mountain passes.

Likewise it is hard for the attacker to concentrate all his strength at one place in the mountains.

quote:

Mountains simply cannot support large fomations, in 1944, when Konev pinned the 1st SS panzer up against the Carpatian mountains, the 1st SS Panzer did not just climb up and dig in. They were effectively cut off, not given a great defensive position.

And I don't think it realistic either that large formations can dig in on mountains. However when not-so-large formations dig in, they have advantage (and not disadvantage) in defense because the terrain hinders enemy manouver and concentration.

quote:

If we tried to change everything to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game.

Who has talked about "everything"? I myself created a mod for my own pleasure, I don't ask that Vic implements all my changes*. All I see that some people here have huge problems changing even the smallest gamey features, like cavalry attack stats.

*Actually I wonder how is it a great blow for enjoyment if for example MGs, Bazookas, Mortars and AT guns are made paradroppable? Or if research, oil and raw costs are lowered? Yeah, the game becomes obviously incredibly boring if one can actually research and upgrade, conduct bombing campaigns etc etc.

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker If we tried to change everyting to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game. I still think that the only real change that needs to be made, is to make guerrillas available to all factions. Meanie.

I agree here. The only thing I'd change is to reduce the combat power of the Cavalry, probably to Infantry levels. They are still very useful for recon (especially), raiding and cutting off retreat hexes.

Guerrillas are, in my opinion, tedious (for both the user and defender) and take away from the main ebb and flow of the game.

Totally agree with the Halftrack line of reasoning. Halftracks are great, if somewhat expensive, additions to any infantry force.

I did a bunch of combat sim experiments using halftracks looking for a good way to counteract cavalry. Overall the results were good, especially when coupled with defending in non-open terrain.

Once everyone gets playing around with this idea, cavalry will diminish of their own accord, they are bloody expensive if they are neutralized. CarlVon and I put halftracks through a rigorous examination and we were quite impressed. Sure they lose battles, but at very slight cost to the defense while reducing combat readiness of the attacker. When they lose battles, once in a while you will lose a halftrack or two, but most of the time your troops can and will, retreat over a river and up a mountain with minimal losses. Halftracks mixed in with cav and a few (this could mean anything) armor units, make for a very fomidable force structure that is not to be intimidated by great gobs of cavalry.As an added bonus, this makes your starting supply of garrison units last a lot longer, allowing more tanks earlier in the game.

I would be willing to trade of Cav offensive power for more oil production, raw production and cheaper techs. My theory is that the increased manufacturing capabilities would keep the game mobile, and varied techs would keep army composition interesting.